On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:48:20 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
LH>While discussing with Glenn whether or not the Bible "teaches
>evolution," Steve let this one slip past:
>SJ> ... Apart from the fact that the scientific understanding of
>evolution is that it is a mindless, purposeless, materialistic
>natural process:
LH>[G.G. Simpson quote snipped]
>
>Steve my friend, I wouldn't let an atheist get away with that one, so I'm
>sure not going to let you do so.
>
>Philosophical scientISM (materialism) teaches that evolution is a
>mindless, purposeless process.
>Some scientISTS understand evolution as a mindless, purposeless process.
>Some people CLAIM that science teaches that evolution is a mindless,
>purposeless process.
>| !!!!! BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT _SCIENCE_ REALLY SAYS !!!!! |
This is just semantics, grounded in shifting definitions of
"science" and "evolution". I get constantly reminded by TEs that
science must be methodologically naturalistic to be science at all:
"Most scientists who are theists also accept this same conception of
science. As Raymond Grizzle wrote in a prominent evangelical
scientific journal recently, "God cannot be part of a scientific
description.... [Further], any description that implies a creator
will probably also be looked at as improper by most scientists." (R
Grizzle, "Some Comments on the `Godless' Nature of Darwinian
Evolution, and a Plea to the Philosophers Among Us," Perspectives on
Science and the Christian Faith 45 (1993): 176). Nancey Murphy, a
philosopher and Fuller Seminary professor, agrees. She wrote
recently in the same journal: "Science qua science seeks
naturalistic explanations for all natural processes. Christians and
atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without
invoking a Creator.... Anyone who attributes the characteristics of
living things to creative intelligence has by definition stepped into
the arena of either metaphysics or theology." (N. Murphy, "Phillip
Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin,"
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45, no. 1 (1993): 33).
(Meyer S.C., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill, 1994, p69)
Since science, as it is currently conceived, is methodologically
atheistic, it excludes any concept of a Creator who has designed,
created and controls the universe in general and evolution in
pareticular, for a purpose. Therefore it follows that "the
scientific understanding of evolution is that it is a mindless,
purposeless, materialistic natural process".
LH>(Sorry, I'm not yelling at anyone in particular. I'm yelling for
>catharsis. :-)
Instead of "yelling", why don't you ask Dean Kenyon what happened
when he tried to teach that the origin of life might have been by
Intelligent Design? :-)
LH>The scientific understanding of evolution is that it is a
>stochastic process in which events which are not caused by the
>organisms in question can affect their survival and/or their genetic
>information. But as we theists (and a few atheists) know, that is
>NOT necessarily the same as being a mindless, purposeless process.
>(Proberbs 16:33 again.)
You are switching definitions here from:
1. "what The scientific understanding of evolution is", ie.
"stochastic process in which events which are not caused by the
organisms in question can affect their survival and/or their genetic
information"; to:
2. what individual "theists" and "atheists" might understand
evolution to be: "But as we theists (and a few atheists) know, that
is NOT necessarily the same as being a mindless, purposeless
process."
This does not change, but rather confirms what I said, namely:
"THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION is that it is a
mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process" (my emphasis)
LH>Is this an important distinction? You better believe it is! I
>feel strongly that this point needs to be made over and over and
>over and over, in as many forums as possible. Can you tell? :-)
What point exactly was it? :-) It is uncontroversial that *as an
individual* a scientist may believe that evolution is a guided
process (whether by God, Gaia, Nature, the anthropic principle, etc).
But the bottom line is that *as a scientist* he/she cannot claim that
"evolution" is guided by intelligence, purposeful, or non-
materialistic:
"The domination of naturalism over intellectual life is not affected
by the fact that some religious believers and active churchgoers hold
prestigious academic appointments. With very few exceptions, these
believers maintain their respectability by tacitly accepting the
naturalistic rules that define rationality in the universities. They
explicitly or implicitly concede that their theism is a matter of
"faith" and agree to leave the realm of "reason" to the agnostics.
This is true in every field of study, but especially so in natural
science, the discipline that has the authority to describe physical
reality for all the others. A biologist may believe in God on
Sundays, but he or she had better not bring that belief to the
laboratory on Monday with the idea that it has any bearing on the
nature or origin of living organisms. For professional purposes
atheistic and theistic biologists alike must assume that nature is
all there is." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p8)
LH>We now return to my mild-mannered self.
Good! Perhaps you can actually deal with my statement that:
"the scientific understanding of evolution is that it is a mindless,
purposeless, materialistic natural process" ? :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------